The Death of Socrates

The death of Socrates by Jacques-Louis David 1787

“Crito, we ought to offer a cock to Asclepius. See to it, and don’t forget”

The last days of Socrates, Pheado, Penguin classics, translated by Hugh Tredennice and Harold Tarrant (p.198)

These were the last words spoken by Socrates in his final moments. But what could be the meaning of these last words?

Many years ago, when I first began my never-ending fascination with philosophy, I came across this passage, which, since then, has left a lasting mark on me. When I think about Socrates's death, Christ's death also comes to mind. The more I contemplate the death of both these men, I can’t help but find a few similarities, which are of great intrigue to me. However, before I get into this contrast of sorts, I would like to discuss the death of Socrates, as this is the main topic at hand.

A great deal has been mentioned concerning the death of Socrates from various accounts, of which we derive most of what we know of his death, comes from Socrates’ contemporaries. Two are of note: Plato and Xenophon, whilst both depict Socrates differently, agree on how he was killed, drinking poisoned hemlock. What is remarkable about Socrates is how he bore his ill fate with a calm, moderate, and defiant tone. If one were to read between the lines of the opening quote of this post, we can see Socrates’ virtuous and wise tone in full display. For those unfamiliar with Greek Myths, Asclepius was the God of healing, and just like many of the gods whom the Greeks honoured, they would make offerings to the Gods. It’s quite curious why Socrates would say this in his last words. So why would he instruct Crito to make an offering to the God of healing?

The meaning of his last words

As mentioned, we need to read between the lines here, seeing as Asclepius was the god of healing and Socrates is about to take his last breath. We can safely assume that Socrates, when instructing him to make this offering, is being cured of the illness of life. From what has been inferred, we can then come to some sort of consensus as to what Socrates means under this assumption.

Within Platonic philosophy, the body is viewed as a hindrance to attaining true knowledge. The life of a philosopher is that of perpetual wonder and yearning for truth. This insatiable desire is felt throughout the life of a philosopher. However, for Plato, this doesn’t come without an element of difficulty. That is the body and its many needs and desires. As such, they serve as various distractions for the true philosopher. The moments in life in which the body of a philosopher is not demanding the attention of the soul to serve its wants and desires are moments of bliss for a philosopher.

Death, in this case for a philosopher, is not something to be feared, but to be embraced, as they will be stripped of the mortal body that provides endless troubles and finally dwell in the pilgrimage that is their eternal soul, Thus, they can continue their quest so to speak after true knowledge and being.

In light of what has just been mentioned, it is easy to see why Socrates asks Crito to make this offering. In a sense, God, in his care, has come to relieve Socrates of the illness that was the mortal body. It is a blessing for Socrates because he can dwell in his eternal being, which is his soul, unhindered by the body. Death for Socrates is either one of two things;

1. An endless sleep-like state

2. A migration to the next world

Either option for Socrates is of great benefit, the first being as such because it would be a peaceful, uninterrupted sleep, the second being brought to an eternal place, void of mortal problems. Death for Socrates shouldn’t be feared under these two options. In truth, many don’t know what it is like when we finally pass on. To assume so would have us believe we know something we don't know.

The conversation with Crito

It ought to be well known that Socrates, in a sense, chose to die. In a cold, dimly lit prison, there is Socrates, who is about to die. Yet, seemingly, he is unfazed by the dreadful fate that awaits him. A few days prior, a dear friend of his named Crito had come to visit him. Crito arrives just before dawn and has arrived at such an ungodly hour to request that Socrates escape urgently.

As it turns out, there has been a slight delay in the day in which Socrates is supposed to die. Crito believes the ship will arrive today, but Socrates disagrees and believes it will arrive the day after. Socrates was told in a rather prophetic manner that there would be a delay. Regardless, this gives Crito slightly more time to convince Socrates why he ought to escape, as the charges seem hardly just. Though unsure of this, Socrates relents and listens to what his friend has to say. As such, Crito provides 5 reasons as to why he should escape.

1. The opinions of others and the poor reputation of Crito and Socrates that would follow

2. His children would grow up without a father 

3. All expenses are covered, so money isn’t an issue

4. Socrates’ unjust condemnation is unjust 

5. Crito feels as though Socrates is choosing the easy way out

As strong as the arguments may seem, Socrates is seemingly unconvinced, and he will demonstrate why Crito’s arguments are unsound.

On the opinions of others 

Essentially, we shouldn't mind the opinions of the majority but only those that have an element of expertise in the given realm of knowledge. Ignorant opinions should not be taken too seriously. This is despite what the ignorant majority has done, utilizing a democratic vote that has condemned Socrates for. The ignorant, not knowing much of wisdom, should not be taken too seriously when searching for wisdom. When one wants to learn carpentry, one would not ask the advice on this matter from a baker. One possesses expertise concerning carpentry, the other doesn’t. 

The knowledge one ought to attain in a certain field should mould one's judgment and actions off the person who possesses wisdom in that given area. So the wise should not seek out an ignorant man. If one were to do so, they would feel the negative effect of not attaining wisdom because they paid too much attention to the ignorant man. For Socrates, a mind and body that is unhealthy and ruined by ignorance is not worth living. Whereas when one's soul and body are wise and virtuous, it is by extension worth living. Given what has been said, when one falls into ignorance by listening and taking seriously what the ignorant majority thinks, then the person would be unwise, unjust, and in utter ruin. As we have said, life in this state is not worth living. On this condition, if Socrates takes what the ignorant majority thinks and fears, he would have the ill effects that fall upon a man who has been previously stated. Instead, Socrates chooses to live with wisdom and virtue. 

Socrates, though facing such a calamity, believes that people's ability to bring about a great harm upon him can also bestow the greatest good. But due to ignorance, lacking wisdom and virtue, they chose the former and not the latter. But as Socrates doesn’t concern himself with ignorance but only with wisdom, he doesn’t care for the opinions of the ignorant, even if it means he has to die for it. Furthermore, he cares very little for what reputation the ignorant masses will give Socrates. In their ignorance, they lack true understanding and wisdom, which allows them to see the truth of who Socrates is. Socrates cares more for what the wise minority thinks of him, as they are wise and virtuous, of which he is concerned with.

So, Critos's proposal to escape on this first point is refuted.

The money concerned

Concerning the expenses being covered, Socrates is not concerned about the expenses being covered. His only concern is to do what is just, not what is financially feasible. Besides, he considers the expense argument to be a concern for the ordinary person, not with the one who is concerned with wisdom, justice, and virtue, as is Socrates. His only concern here is whether escaping, regardless of the expenses, is justified.

On his reputation and children

Like the previous counterargument regarding financial aid of escape, his counterargument, on the surface, seems very quick and straightforward. But a little digging under the surface should shed these two arguments in a deeper light, that is, if we read between the lines. On the surface, Socrates rejects Crito’s proposal of escape on these grounds because this is the concern of the everyday man and not a philosopher such as himself.

Regarding reputation, he doesn’t care that much about what people think. This is because they would, in a moment, be killed or brought to life whilst being indifferent to reason. The ignorant are neither wise nor virtuous. And seeing as though Socrates does not concern himself with the ignorant mob, he doesn’t care what ignorant reputation they will give him. His concern when it comes to any form of reputation with him by others is that of the wise and virtuous people. He only cares for what the wise and virtuous think. 

Regarding the argument for his children's sake, Socrates would argue that him concerning himself with wisdom and virtue is setting a good example for his children. His reputation as a wise and virtuous man is kept intact by choosing the wise and virtuous life even to the point of death. For if he chose to escape, he would give himself a bad reputation of being seemingly guilty and unjust. As a result, it would give his children a bad education in matters of what is right and wrong. But if he stays, he isn’t guilty, judged, and condemned poorly by an ignorant mob. This can be seen as a life lesson that Socrates gives to his children. He dies with his good reputation of being wise and virtuous intact. Socrates is a victim of ignorance, and not one who commits injustice.

On justice

Socrates's main concern throughout his conversation with Crito is justice. Now, Crito believes that Socrates is acting unjustly by choosing to die at the hands of the ignorant mob. Socrates, however, endeavored to explain why escaping would be unjust. So, with the previous points being argued away, he believes that escaping using money is unjust, likewise because of the reputation of opinions of others, and also for his children. 

What Socrates is mostly concerned with in Critos’ argument is whether it is just for him to escape, not what is circumstantial or personal. For Socrates, justice and what is right and wrong are tied up with virtue and ought to be a universal standard by which we measure our conduct, no matter the circumstance. This comes as no surprise in this case. Committing an evil for an evil would be an act contrary to the beliefs that they have held for many years at this point. So, to commit injustice in any case is a wrong and evil act, of which it is opposed to what is good and right. Wisdom and virtue are what is good, along with justice. Seeing as how Socrates is concerned with these only, to commit such an injustice in escaping would destroy who he is as a person. Remember, an unwise and ignorant life is not worth living. In choosing to die, he is choosing life by remaining wise and virtuous right to the end. A man possessing wisdom, virtue, and justice, and who is good by extension, will never return an evil for an evil, no matter the circumstance. Socrates sees no issues with the law, of which he deems just, but rather he sees issues with the element of democracy that promotes ignorance. He is in defiance of ignorance, not the laws, by sticking to the laws and accepting his fate, he is being just by obeying the law.

It is agreed by both Socrates and Crito that to commit an unjust act is always wrong. So, although what has befallen Socrates is an unjust sentence, he, even with his life on the line, cannot commit an unjust act by fleeing. Socrates and Crito then agree that when one agrees, granted the agreement is just and right, there is an obligation for one to fulfill that agreement. To not do so would be seen as an act of injustice. 

The laws speak to Socrates

Socrates is a man of justice and, with that, the law. Justice and the law are the same for him. The laws suggest that Socrates's fleeing would completely throw the laws upside down. What is just is universal and fixed; no matter the circumstance, one who is just should always be as such. Choosing to flee it undermines the laws that are just. This is because, if one commits a crime or is unjustly prosecuted, they should act in accordance with justice and the law. So, under this scenario, if one can escape after committing a crime or being unjustly condemned, they would be breaking the law. Whether guilty or innocent, one must obey the law, which is just, and this is what Socrates is doing; he is being just by obeying the law and not escaping it, and the law is not being undermined.

The laws go on to say that Socrates, at any point, could have left the city with no punishment. If he found fault with the laws, he could've left, but he didn't, so he stayed believing them to be just. But now, at this time in contemplating fleeing, he would do so under the most unjust reasons. The laws for Socrates are like a father-son relationship, in which a son ought not to raise his hand at his father if he scolds him for a wrong act.   

To put it simply, by escaping and disregarding the laws, he commits an unjust act. This will give Socrates the reputation of an unjust lawbreaker. No matter where he goes in any other city, people will know what he did. Likewise, the gods and those who dwell in Hades will know of his bad reputation. In doing so, Socrates will no longer be a wise, virtuous, and just man, and he will give his children a bad education and reputation. He will be a bad role model for his children and others. His sons will receive a good education and live in the very same city that Socrates never saw any fault in and enjoyed all his life. But this can only happen if he stays put and dies as a wise, virtuous, and just man. This will carry into the next life, where Socrates is eager to be. Furthermore, his reputation for being wise and virtuous will remain with him after death.

For Socrates, to escape is not a life worth living, either for himself, his family, or his friends. The laws suggest to Socrates that he should choose what is just, wise, virtuous, and right over the wrongful life he could live should he choose to flee. In choosing to obey the laws that are wise and just, Socrates is also wise, just, and virtuous. The laws proclaim that Socrates would be a victim of an ignorant mob, of which the laws are not at fault, but the ignorance of people is. Socrates will be welcomed as a hero in the world of Hades, to which the Gods will judge rightly, unlike the ignorance that condemned him in this one.

It is thus that Socrates chose to die.

Refusing to escape - the moral code

As the story of Socrates’s last moments has passed down through the ages, many people have debated why Socrates refused to escape and thus chose to die. I think the reasons have been demonstrated sufficiently throughout this post, but I would like to give particular focus on this seemingly odd refusal. To do that, we need to apply a special focus on Socrates’ moral code.

Socrates, throughout his life, was mainly concerned with the attainment of wisdom and virtue. His never-ending quest for the attainment of these made him either a friend or a foe with his contemporaries. He thought that an unexamined life is not worth living, and such he sought to do that not just to himself but with others. Socrates cared very little for everyday life and would consistently get lost in his mind, bereft of attention. Justice was a very high standard of life that he thought one should seek to attain. Justice for Socrates was a universal application in which it ought to be applied at all times, no matter the circumstance. As such, this at times would seemingly come at the cost of his personal life. Though many agreed with Socrates, many didn’t. Hence why they went to the lengths of putting him to death. Justice for many of his contemporaries consisted in democratic voting, which Socrates strongly disagreed with. Morals and justice, in a democratic were at the mercy of the whims of the mob, who were either ignorant or wise. This, for Socrates, wasn’t a correct application of a moral code and justice.

With the unerring desire to attain wisdom and virtue, Socrates never really cared for ignorance. Ignorance for him was a great evil, seemingly because this is where evil deeds stem from, ignorance. So, he sought to dismantle his own and others’ ignorance but dialectically. In doing so, he challenged his views and others on ethics, justice, etc.

In refusing to escape, he conformed to his notion of Justice and ethics being a universal standard at all times. If Socrates chose to escape, he would become a hypocrite of his teaching. Even in the face of certain death, Socrates chose a life of wisdom and virtue, he did what was just to the very end of his life. Crito’s arguments as to why he ought to escape are futile and insufficient. For the most part, Crito is arguing from a subjective and personal reason as to why he ought to escape. Socrates was only concerned with what is right and just, by a universal standard, not what is right and good from a personal perspective or circumstance. Most of Critos’ arguments are not enough to persuade Socrates because they don’t conform to the universal standard for justice that Socrates has. The universal standard of justice for Socrates goes beyond personal desire, circumstance, or convenience.

Socrates very much valued wisdom and virtue, and justice in the highest standing. To be guided by these three was deemed a good life. To not do so, however, would be a life not worth living. For this reason alone, Socrates chose death because had he escaped, he would have valued life more than wisdom, virtue, and justice, to which having done so would’ve led to a more wretched life. Faced with a moral dilemma, he decided to value what was good and right despite his certain death. Socrates placed his values and principles which were infused by wisdom, justice, and virtue, over and above everything else, even over his own life.

In doing so, his death symbolised everything good and right. It was a beacon for wisdom, virtue, and justice. No matter the circumstance, at all times, despite it being at variance with our wants and desires. We ought to value wisdom, virtue, and justice above all, of which it should be the driving force behind what we say and how we act. In not doing this, it can bring your life to ruin, and one that is not worth living. This is a lesson that has been passed down through the ages. It teaches us that in the face of overwhelming ignorance, one who is wise and virtuous ought to remain steadfast in the radiant light of truth, wisdom, and virtue, which are the highest goods of life. In conforming to ignorance, like the masses of the Athenians did at that time, they bask in falsehood, judging and condemning people with indifference to reason, wisdom, and virtue.

In refusing to escape when he had many seemingly good reasons to do so, they didn’t conform to what is right and just. And, had he chosen to escape, he would’ve committed an unjust act. The people, not the laws, were at fault; ignorance and not wisdom were at fault which brought him to his demise. Socrates honoured wisdom and the laws over the general masses of ignorance. Socrates didn’t want to fall into a state of ignorance, and he couldn’t have done so; the voice of reason and wisdom told him not to, which has been with him for many years. It goes to show that at times, wisdom, virtue, justice, and reason can overrule ignorance and falsehood. And so when one (like Socrates) is guided by this inner voice at all times, ignorance and an act of injustice is very unlikely to occur. It has been demonstrated that the general masses, controlled by overwhelming ignorance, choose a life of riches and fame over wisdom, justice, and virtue. As noted, Socrates cared nothing about these things. When one is guided by the voice of wisdom, justice, and virtue, they can avoid the many ills that plague a mans life, including ignorance.

The charges - ignorance on trial

Socrates addressing the Athenian court

For the longest time, Socrates was considered a bit of an oddball but was generally quite harmless. Well, that all changed when he was charged and put on trial. The charges?

1. Impiety

2. Corrupting the young

These were enough to bring him to trial and ultimately to his demise. He was charged with impiety on the account of not recognising the god recognised by the state. What was most likely is that Socrates did believe in God(s), but where he differed was in his view of them. In challenging his views and others, he also challenged the religious customs of his time. Most of what Athenians and Greeks has by ways of religion was the stories they was told by Homer and other poets. This is the very same custom in which Socrates was brought up, yet he deviated from that custom and questioned it. Something that greatly offended his fellow citizens of his time.

As mentioned, Athenians had certain customs that honored the gods that were recognized by the state and its populace at large. Many temples and statues were erected in honour of the gods. It was expected of every Athenian citizen to make offerings, take part in rituals, and attend public displays of honoring the gods. In failure to do so, for many Athenians, was to incur the wrath of the gods upon the city. Socrates likely disagreed with these customs and stories handed down by the poets about the gods. As such, it is evident that this would’ve put Socrates at variance with the masses, particularly with those who were seriously religiously inclined. Holding any other view regarding the gods made Socrates an enemy of the state. The depiction of Socrates by Plato and how that reflected the real Socrates cannot be known for sure, thus, the line becomes blurred. But what we can infer is that the real Socrates would’ve disagreed with the immoral stories told about the gods. The reasons for this suggest that the poets gave bad moral advice to the youth of Athens, ironic, no? For example, the rage of Ares that overpowers reason, the lies of Odysseus, see the issues he would’ve had in agreeing with this?

From what has been said, we understand that Socrates disagreed with poets about the gods, and he also disagreed with the customs and rituals built on honouring the gods based on these stories. Socrates saw this as having a poor effect on the Athenians, it thought emotion over reason, passion over rationale, serving vices rather than wisdom. On the surface, the charge for impiety seems quite just, but to me, this isn’t so. The charge of not recognising the gods recognized by the state seems to fall under not following the practices established in Socrates’ day. But what we find is that Socrates did believe in the gods, just not in the stories and subsequent customs formed on these stories.

God for him was pure goodness, which is not what you find in the vengeful, jealous demeanor told of Homer and others. The gods were of the highest wisdom and goodness, in which virtue followed. What is honourable in the vices that are betrayed by the poets about the gods? Socrates used wisdom and reason in viewing the gods, he didn’t place human attributes or faults. The reason for this is that the gods are perfect and flawless, eternal and pure goodness. To have human attributes and be prone to vices would contradict how many see god, including Socrates.

Within the Apology, Socrates mentions how a friend of his went to see the Oracle of Delphi in upper central Greece. The purpose of the visit of his friend was to ask, “Is there anyone wiser than Socrates?” to which the priestess replied, “There is none wiser”. This story alone he relayed to the people of the court, which made him more unpopular.

With regards the the second charge, corrupting the youth, as mentioned, there is a certain level of irony based of the last charge as mentioned. Notably, Socrates was trying to subvert the customs and stories told about the gods by the poets and put them in a better light, by use of wisdom and reason. With regards to corrupting the youth, this mostly stemmed from the influence that Socrates had on the youth of Athens. It is noted in the Apology that Socrates would discuss with anyone, young or old alike, rich and poor, and nobody was discriminated against. As such, he gathered many followers, including young people.

Around the time of Socrates’ day, rhetoric was a powerful and influential device to convey stories, opinions, philosophies, religious rights etc, Well, in some ways, Socrates seemed to be somewhat at variance with this also, in that he preferred a dialectic approach, known as the Socratic method. Socrates believed this was a better device in searching for truth, because it allows one to dig deeper and search the inner recesses of their soul to find the truth. In asking questions, opening up a dialectic is a community-driven, social way of finding truth. This, for obvious reasons, is a very attractive means in searching for truth. The youth of Athens liked seeing this and as such would practice this themselves. In developing such a method and being adopted by many youths, it can be used for good or for bad means. For example, some youths may have used it to embarrass and disrespect people. This, for Socrates, was not the goal; truth was the main goal, to which one’s ignorance was laid bare and interrogated. As noted in the Apology, what the youth did with his teachings and methods cannot fairly be attributed to him. The reason for this is that for Socrates, it directly contradicts Socrates’ purpose in his methods and teachings.

So, how did Socrates put ignorance trial?

Well, one could say his being charged and put on trial in the courts is an act of ignorance. The charges we can now see are based on ignorance. To say he was impious is based on following traditions and stories told of gods which don’t share them in a good light. They have every fault and attribute that humans do, which Socrates disagreed with. He did believe in the gods, but how different from the current custom of his time. There is room to suggest that Socrates’ beliefs in the gods are predicated on goodness, wisdom, and reason. whereas the gods which are based on the poets are founded on ignorance, depravity, which the vices to which they are prone. Socrates’ view of the gods are wise and virtuous; the gods of the poets are viewed with having ignorant and full of vice. The people who condemned Socrates to death were probably deeply embedded in the old traditions and sided with a conservative view on the gods.

In some ways, Socrates showed how ignorant the masses are, his condemnation proved this tenfold. Socrates showed how the masses believed in false idols, in such a way that they believed in the wrong stories told about the gods. Elsewhere, in many moments of his life, he would go around Athens and talk to anyone. Through his teachings, methods, and means, he would show how ignorant the person with whom he is conversing with in a particular manner. As such, Socrates accrued many enemies and adversaries along his divine purpose given to him by the god Apollo. He wanted to enlighten the masses and turn to wisdom and virtue, not ignorance and vice. But being concerned with the latter, they ignored the former and killed Socrates. Does this remind you of a certain man?

Allow me to return to the charge of corrupting the youth of Athens. This, as mentioned, was also an act of ignorance, because those who charged him on this account didn’t understand what Socrates did. Socrates, as mentioned, held wisdom, justice, and virtue to be the highest and pinnacle of man’s highest being. of which a life without these is not worth living. Socrates sought to teach this to anyone, including the young, using the Socratic method, of which many were influenced and followed.

To summarise this point of ignorance on trial, Socrates showed how the masses cared too much for things that hold very little value in the grand scheme of things. He demonstrated in the trial and elsewhere how the masses are under the sway of vice and ignorance. Of which this sway ranged across various aspects of their life, including morals and religious traditions. However, being under such a strong influence of ignorance and vice, they cannot see their ignorance. This brought many people at variance with Socrates, ignorance at odds with vice.

His death, however, showed what ignorance in its full extreme can do and the influence it has spanning various aspects of one’s life. It was this extreme form of ignorance that Socrates warned us about and was at odds with. The antidote to such forms of ignorance, wisdom, justice, and virtue, of which Socrates has taught us and people of his time to honour at all costs, even in the face of death, as demonstrated in his death. The death of Socrates represents ignorance winning the battle over wisdom, but it has lost the war. Ignorance won over wisdom, which shows how ignorant the masses were by condemning such a wise and virtuous man. They destroyed a man who was pious, wise, and virtuous and favoured the most depraved aspects of human nature. Socrates honoured the divine element we all have. Had the masses of his time held wisdom and virtue and held it in the regard he did, Socrates wouldn’t have been condemned.

The issue with Democracy

As mentioned previously, Socrates was at variance with democracy. In some ways, his very trial and execution were indicative of a flawed constitution. The ignorant whims of the mob, lacking true knowledge and wisdom, can and often do prevail over truth and wisdom. Socrates elsewhere noted how, though they are capable of bringing evils upon anyone, they also possess the capacity to bestow the greatest good. However, they are indifferent to reason and wisdom, and normally side with ignorance to the detriment of many, including Socrates. It is here where Socrates sees fault in a democratic society, namely, people’s ignorance and foolishness. The reason this presents an issue is that in a democratic society, anyone can vote. This free rein voting system can influence decisions on law and policies, governance, and who ought to be elected in positions of power. This, for Socrates, creates an unstable system of government because decisions made in aspects just mentioned are not made under wise governance, but rather at the whims of what the masses want, which are influenced by many factors, not under wisdom alone.

Socrates thought this was a problem because the masses are not wise enough to make such important decisions. Being at the mercy of ignorance and vice, they don’t know what they are voting for and why. This can be proven to be detrimental because political leadership and policies are driven and upheld by ignorance. This is nowhere proven in its absolute extreme when we consider the death of Socrates, in which the masses, being ignorant, condemned an innocent, wise, and virtuous man. Lacking in wisdom and virtue, they failed to see this in Socrates. As such, Socrates fell victim to what he deemed at faulty and flawed system that is unstable. Though being a victim of an ignorant mob, he has shown himself to be the victor in showing the issue with a democracy and the ignorance that lies within us. His death symbolised a critique of ignorance and democracy written large.

When one is introduced to ancient Athens, one thing pops up almost immediately, and that is democracy. More specifically, they were the founding fathers of democracy. Ancient Athenians prided themselves on the democratic system that they so cherished. Many of the citizens had the freedom of which they had influence and have a say in how their state is governed. As much as democracy has flaws, it also has a share in some benefits. Corruption is unlikely to occur because democratic rule can prevent this by majority vote; in a dictatorship, for example, this isn’t possible. Furthermore, it promoted a collective contribution in running the state, of which their input mattered. Socrates mainly focused on the main issues of a democratic society. He advocated for a wise leadership, something akin to a monarchy, because again, the masses cannot be trusted in making important decisions, which is the cornerstone of a democracy. It seems the issue Socrates mainly had with a democracy is with the ignorant masses having a strong influence on how a state is run.

Based of this, it appears to me perhaps a compromise between a wise and philosophical monarchy and democracy could’ve been had. A form of constitution that falls between the two, in which a “wise shepherd” could be head of state, which would be enough to satisfy Socrates, but to appease the masses, an element of democracy would remain, though in a limited way. The masses can vote and have a say, granted they are wise and possess high knowledge in these matters. Realistic? Probably not, would Socrates like it? who knows.

In some ways, Socrates was correct in his critique of a democracy. It can be unstable; the majority, though be ignorant, can vote, which directly impacts the state in various ways. For these reasons, Socrates finds faults with a democracy, which ironically is the system that brought an end to his life. Again, proved the issue with the democracy of his time. I firmly believe a constitution between a monarchy that is wise and virtuous and democracy could’ve been had. The reason is suggesting this is that Socrates mainly found issue with the ignorance of the masses. Socrates advocated for wisdom and virtue as the cornerstone and guiding principles of our lives and in the realm of government, not ignorance and vice, which the masses are governed by. Therefore, a government system based on this can only bring ruin to oneself and others, as well as the state at large.

It has been mentioned by many who critise Socrates’ treatment of democracy and preference for a wise shepherd as something bordering on totalitarianism. I find this objection unsound because Socrates wouldn't restrict freedom from his people; it’s just that under the wise king, wisdom is the cornerstone of a prospering society. In such a prosperous society, people can find freedom and live good lives. The wise king would serve under wisdom and for the betterment of the people. The populace would live better lives because wisdom and virtue would be what they are guided by, which as we have seen, leads to a life worth living.

So was he against democracy? Yes and no.

How it impacts us and what we can learn from it

The death of Socrates has echoed down through the ages thanks to Plato. His death, so beautifully depicted by Plato and Xenophon, serves as a beacon. That beacon is still bright and ever present serving as a constant reminder of wisdom and virtue. In many ways, Socrates perfectly embodied what it’s like and what it costs to be guided by wisdom and virtue. The moral philosophy of Socrates is a life full of examination of both ourselves and others, in which we ought to mould our actions around virtue in all cases. The death of Socrates shows how the world shuns wisdom and virtue in favour of ignorance and vice.

The death of Socrates impacts us today because, in various aspects of our modern life, ignorance is rife, and many unsound opinions are formed. Such prevalence of ignorance, which shows up in various aspects of our lives, can be proven to be a detriment. Ignorance is the very illness and disease that Socrates went to tedious lengths to show us. But as time has elapsed since that fatal day up to the present, ignorance is still very much prevalent in our lives. When one is ignorant, they are living in a dark shadow, void of light and life. When ignorance is so rife about viewing ourselves, others, and the world, it can lead to a very depraved life, one that is not worth living. Ignorance, knowingly or not, is viewed by many as a good; it is a form of comfort that many of us seek; the truth, wisdom, and virtue confront and shatter the illusion of ignorance. It is of no wonder that many shun wisdom and virtue, it is because it puts us in a rather uncomfortable position, which brings us out of our comfort zone, filled with illusions and darkness.

For Socrates, it is only until you step into the radiant light of wisdom, truth, and virtue that one can shatter the darkness of ignorance. Socrates’ life, trial, and death show what it takes to not be fooled by ignorance and ascend to the inner voice of wisdom and virtue. Socrates’ death shows what happens when ignorance is so rife and taken to an extreme. In which forms of ignorance, we believe in false notions and idols, pulled and dragged around by the illusions of falsehood, confused when confronted by the fake mirrors of ignorance. When taken to an extreme, we live a life that is wretched, disconnected, and disenfranchised. We become alienated from ourselves and subsequently become hostile to ourselves and others. As has been shown in history and today, this can lead to wars from within and without. For Socrates, truth, wisdom, and virtue (the soul) are our good, true self. When we sever the connection between ourselves and the soul, we fall into deep ignorance.

Socrates suggested that we ought to listen to the voice of wisdom, reason and be virtuous, because if we don’t, ignorance runs rife and brings to ruin many people and cultures. Wisdom and virtue are the antidote to such an ignorant disease, and if we don’t heed this warning, this can very much happen to ourselves and the society at large. This, which has happened before, can bring an end or at least bring civilization to the brink of collapse. The condemnation and subsequent death of Socrates is what happens when ignorance is the prevailing norm in one’s life and society at large. It leads to one making disastrous decisions, which are informed based on ignorance, causing such issues and strife.

One only has to look at our modern life to see how truly ignorant people are, from the everyday man to the high-ranking politicians. Upon closer examination, we can see so clearly what issues have caused. Ignorance is like an axe wound in which we are only putting a plaster (band-aid) over. To stop this bleeding so to speak, we ought to heed Socrates’ warning and assent to truth and virtue. When the bleeding stops, we can bring a cure of wisdom and virtue back into our society, which Socrates, like the Herculean labours, tried to do.

Could we avenge Socrates and perform such labours of our own? Only time will tell.

Was he right in his judgment?

Socrates’ decision to accept his death sentence rather than escape has been a subject of intense philosophical debate. On one hand, his choice exemplifies a profound commitment to his principles, particularly the belief that one should live a virtuous life in accordance with one's values. Socrates famously asserted that "an unexamined life is not worth living," indicating that he prioritised philosophical inquiry and moral integrity over mere survival. In essence, he valued the pursuit of wisdom, virtue, and justice over a mortal life. Suggested elsewhere, he had no interest in leading a normal life. The mission he was commissioned by God was his only interest in life. In the Apology, it is suggested that Socrates may be let off and live freely, but under one condition: that he should give up philosophy. To which Socrates addressed them with the following;

“Gentleman, I am your grateful and devoted servant, but I owe greater obedience to God than to you, and so long as I draw breath and have my faculties, I shall never cease from the practice of philosophy and exhorting you and indicating the truth for everyone I meet.”

I shall go on saying in my usual way;

“My very good friend, you are an Athenian and belong to a city which is the greatest and most famous in the world for its wisdom and strength. Are you not ashamed that you give your attention to acquiring as much money as possible, and similarly with reputation and honour, and give no attention to thought, to truth and understanding, and the perfection of your soul? And if any of you disputes this and professes to care about these things, I shall not let him go or leave him; no, I shall question and examine him and put him to the test; and if it appears that in spite of his profession he has made no real progress towards goodness, I shall reprove him for neglecting what is of supreme importance, and giving his attention to trivialities.”

The last days of Socrates, Plato, Apology, translated by Hugh Tredennice and Harold Tarrant (pp. 55 and 56)

It is shown that in his strong commitment to God and his mission, he wasn’t going to change,

By choosing death, Socrates also rejected the notion of injustice. He believed that escaping would undermine the very convictions he preached regarding the social contract and the duty of the citizen to obey the laws of the state, even when those laws led to an unjust outcome. His willingness to face death rather than compromise his ideals can be seen as an act of ultimate integrity and philosophical consistency, which has inspired countless individuals throughout history. To his last breath, he died fighting for wisdom and truth, which many of his contemporaries didn’t pay any attention to.

Conversely, critics might argue that Socrates' choice was not a pragmatic one. By not attempting to escape, he arguably forfeited the opportunity to continue his philosophical dialogue and teachings, potentially depriving future generations of his insights. In this light, some may view his decision as a defeatist stance, where the value of life, even in the face of injustice, might outweigh the pursuit of virtue. Despite this objection, I believe Socrates was right in choosing death; in choosing life under the proposed means by Crito, it would undermine and contradict the moral and metaphysical teachings of Socrates. Pursuing a life of truth and wisdom is the life of a philosopher; failure to do so, or being deprived of any means of doing this, is a life that is not worth living. Given this, I believe Socrates was right; he gave us all a lesson on what it means to live a good life. Also, he demonstrated the life of a philosopher and the sacrifices that need to be made. His legacy and teaching lived on mainly through Plato, but also others.

In some sense, philosophers may seem alien to this world, but are deeply connected and rooted in it. The philosopher, obsessed with truth and a deep care for others, seeks to shed light and truth on the lives of others. Socrates did this throughout his life and even at his death. The objections to Socrates choosing death are based on Socrates living a life that he thought wasn’t worth living. In a sense he lived a life that he thought was worth it, to which his mission came at a great time. He died as a victim of ignorance; had he chosen to escape, he would have lived a life of injustice, because he disobeyed the laws which are just. Socrates died to show how ignorance of the masses is the problem, not the laws themselves. The laws were just, the ignorant people were not.

Ultimately, whether Socrates was right in choosing to die hinges on one's interpretation of virtue, duty, and the value of life itself. His choice encapsulates the tension between philosophical ideals and mundane realities, continuing to resonate in moral and ethical discussions to this day.

Was he just one of many martyrs?

The question of whether Socrates can be considered a martyr is complex and multifaceted, inviting exploration into the nature of martyrdom, the political and philosophical context of his life, and the implications of his trial and death.

A martyr is typically understood as someone who suffers persecution or death for their beliefs, often in the context of religious or ideological convictions. Socrates, who lived in Athens from 469 to 399 BCE, remains an emblematic figure of philosophical inquiry and ethical dedication. He was charged with impiety and corrupting the youth of Athens, which culminated in his trial and subsequent execution by hemlock poisoning. At the heart of the debate lies Socrates' unwavering commitment to his principles, particularly the pursuit of truth and the importance of questioning societal norms. To which, as we have seen, brought an end to his life.

Socrates' choice to accept his fate rather than escape when offered a way out signals a profound adherence to his philosophical tenets—he believed that it was better to suffer injustice than to commit it. This resolve mirrors the classic image of a martyr, who sacrifices their life for a greater cause. His final dialogues, as recorded by Plato, illustrate his unwavering stance on morality and the integrity of the soul, reinforcing the idea that he viewed death not as an end, but rather as a transition to a possibly more enlightened state. He placed much more emphasis on the soul than on his life and encouraged others to do the same.

In many ways, Socrates is one of the two ultimate martyrs of Western history. His unwavering adherence to wisdom and virtue, and encouraging others to be the same, was a divine mission he couldn’t abandon, even in the face of death. As such, he chose death and to be a martyr rather than escape injustice and fail in his mission. Socrates serves as the perfect example of one who strongly adheres to truth over ignorance. Death of an ignorant and unjust life, lacking wisdom and virtue.

However, to classify Socrates strictly as a martyr also requires careful consideration of the socio-political landscape of Athens at the time. His trial can be interpreted as a reflection of the tensions within Athenian democracy, particularly in the shadow of the Peloponnesian War and the subsequent oligarchic takeover. In this context, Socrates' perceived indictment against the established order of thought and governance could position him not solely as a martyr for intellectual freedom but as a scapegoat representing broader societal conflicts.

It has been shown that when ignorance is prevalent in a society that is democratic society, bad decisions are made on these grounds that have disastrous consequences. During the life of Socrates, he saw a extreme forms of democracy and imperialism can do to a society. Socrates thought that Athens should pride itself on wisdom and virtue, not ignorance and conquest. Seeing as though Socrates held strongly to this belief, he came into odds with the political establishment of his time. They blamed Socrates for the inner conflict that arose in Athens at that time, between democratic and oligarchic factions vying for power.

Moreover, while Socrates' death catalysed the development of Western philosophical thought, his fate did not lead to the immediate establishment of a movement or religious following in his name, as seen in the cases of other martyrs. Instead, his influence emerged posthumously through the works of his students, particularly Plato. This separation from conventional martyrdom raises critical questions about the nature of his sacrifice and the extent of its ideological reach.

In summary, while one can argue that Socrates embodies many characteristics of a martyr through his philosophical convictions and the moral integrity he maintained in the face of death, the broader context of his trial and the philosophical legacy that followed complicate this categorisation. His life and death serve as a profound exemplar of the struggle for truth, perhaps fitting him into a unique niche between philosopher and martyr, rather than fully conforming to either label. Though this is an interesting point, I believe he embodies perfectly what a philosopher is. The truth of his being a martyr can be found when one reads between the lines regarding his death. Socrates may not have consciously chosen to be a martyr, but with the context of his beliefs and commitment to truth and wisdom, and his culture of the time. We can look back on that and say, in rather an indirect way, Socrates was a martyr, even though he didn’t say he was. Since his death, many of his teachings through some of his contemporaries and others have survived, ironically through the written word. Needless to say, we have learnt a lot from this man and will continue to do so.

Socrates and Jesus Christ - their similarities

A depiction of Christ

Though Socrates was seen as a martyr, I can also think of another, that is, Jesus Christ. It would seem rather strange to connect the two, but they both share many similarities. To name two quickly, they were both martyrs and were put to death due to ignorance. Where Socrates is the pinnacle of a philosophical man, falling prey to ignorance. Jesus Christ was the pinnacle of religious thought, and he, too, was put to death on the grounds of ignorance. Both were religious men, and both thought that morals and caring more for the spiritual aspect of man were indicative of a good life. They both conveyed this rather differently, but they nonetheless shared a common interest. Socrates thought men to concern themselves with wisdom, justice, and virtue, Jesus Christ taught about the spirit of man and what god is. Both men wanted to invoke the divine within us, but ignorance was the prevailing means of thought, which shunned their teachings. Socrates and Jesus confronted the social norms and customs of their respective times; in doing so, they paid the price of their lives.

Socrates and Jesus stand as pivotal figures in the landscape of Western thought, each marking significant shifts in philosophical and theological discourse. Though separated by time and culture—Socrates in classical Greece and Jesus in first-century Judea—both left indelible impacts on the course of human understanding.

Socrates, often deemed the father of Western philosophy, is best known for his method of inquiry that emphasised dialectic and critical questioning. His approach was rooted in the Socratic method, which aimed not to impart knowledge but to provoke deep reflection and self-examination among his interlocutors. This pursuit of wisdom is captured in his assertion that “the unexamined life is not worth living.” He challenged his contemporaries to scrutinise their beliefs and values, fostering a culture of philosophical inquiry that extended beyond mere rhetoric into the realm of ethics and morality using dialectic.

In contrast, Jesus, a central figure in Christianity, conveyed profound teachings that emphasised love, compassion, and forgiveness. His parables served as vehicles for moral instruction, highlighting the importance of humility and selflessness. Unlike Socrates, who engaged in dialogues primarily with the elite of Athenian society, Jesus reached out to the marginalised and downtrodden, presenting a vision of the Kingdom of God that inverted social hierarchies and offered hope to the disenfranchised. Jesus said things such as;

“I and the father are one, no one comes to the father except through me”

John 10:30

“Except a man be born again, for he cannot see the kingdom of God”

John 3:3

“The kingdom of heaven is within you.”

Luke 17:21

“Many of the good work from the father I have shown thee, for of which of these do you stone me?” they replied, “for a good work not, but for blasphemy, because you man, say you are god.” Jesus replies, “Is it not written in your law that I said you are gods?”

John 10:34

Let’s reflect on such statements for a moment. Jesus questioned the religious norms of his time. He led a spiritual life and aimed to express that to others as shown above. Jesus tried to invoke the divinity within man, which the Jewish authorities didn’t allow, and as such, he paid the price of his life. At a glance, these few teachings do seem absurd to a religious and normal person, but to a spiritual person, this is a common thing they all say. It’s just that, owing to ignorance of this at the time of Christ, they were condemned to death, like they did with Socrates, but for different reasons, but on similar grounds, namely ignorance. Jesus, from my perspective, was a mystical and spiritual person who tried to enlighten man, much like the Buddha. For a more spiritual interpretation of Jesus, Alan Watts spoke in depth about the meaning behind Christ’s teachings.

Both figures grappled with existential questions concerning virtue, the nature of the good life, and the pursuit of truth. Socrates’ relentless questioning often led him to a stark conclusion about the dangers of ignorance, while Jesus conveyed a message that proposed a radical shift in how individuals relate to one another and the divine. Moreover, both embodied a life of integrity and conviction, ultimately leading to their martyrdom—Socrates through forced hemlock consumption and Jesus through crucifixion. The philosophical legacy of Socrates has provided a foundation for critical thought and ethics, influencing countless philosophers from Plato to contemporary thinkers. Similarly, the teachings of Jesus have shaped moral frameworks and cultural values across centuries, leading to significant theological explorations about the nature of God and humanity.

In examining the contrasting yet complementary legacies of Socrates and Jesus, one finds a rich tapestry of inquiry into the human condition. Socrates encourages the pursuit of knowledge and self-awareness, while Jesus invites a transformative relationship with others and the divine. Together, they invite us to contemplate our beliefs and actions deeply, urging a continual reevaluation of what it means to lead a virtuous life. Through their teachings, we are challenged to consider not only the structure of our thoughts but the compassion with which we extend ourselves to others.

Socrates and Jesus, two seminal figures in the history of thought and spirituality, share several noteworthy similarities despite their distinct cultural and historical contexts. Both are recognised primarily through the accounts of others, leaving us with a somewhat fragmented understanding of their teachings and lives.

One of the most significant parallels lies in their methods of teaching. Socrates is famed for his dialectical method, often referred to as the Socratic Method, which involves questioning and dialogue to stimulate critical thinking and illuminate ideas. Similarly, Jesus employed parables and questions in his teachings, encouraging his followers to reflect deeply on moral and spiritual matters. Both figures valued dialogue as a means of exploring truth, demonstrating a commitment to engaging with their audiences rather than merely imparting authoritarian doctrine, which was so prevalent in their respective times.

In terms of their philosophical and ethical frameworks, both Socrates and Jesus espoused ideals of virtue, righteousness, and self-examination. Socrates famously stated that "the unexamined life is not worth living," promoting the importance of introspection and ethical living. Jesus emphasised similar themes of inner morality and authenticity, urging his followers to examine their hearts and actions concerning love and compassion.

Another significant similarity is their roles as social critics. Socrates challenged the norms and values of Athenian society, often questioning the status quo and the integrity of its leaders. Jesus, likewise, critiqued the religious and social establishments of his time, advocating for the marginalised and speaking out against hypocrisy within institutional religion. Both figures faced opposition and martyrdom for their roles as disruptors, illustrating their commitment to truth over conformity.

Moreover, both Socrates and Jesus are associated with the idea of a higher purpose beyond mere existence. Socrates sought a life of virtue aligned with the pursuit of wisdom and knowledge, believing that such a life was sacred. Jesus framed his mission within the context of God's kingdom, emphasising eternal significance and the transformative power of love and forgiveness. This quest for a higher understanding of existence places both figures within the realm of philosophical inquiry and spiritual aspiration.

Their legacies endure not only in their contributions to philosophy and theology but also in the manner they inspired subsequent generations to question, explore, and seek truth. The similarities between Socrates and Jesus illuminate a shared pursuit of wisdom and moral integrity that transcends cultural boundaries, inviting ongoing reflection on the nature of truth and the human experience. As mentioned, Socrates placed much emphasis on wisdom and virtue, and caring for the soul. In doing so, he confronted many social norms of his time, which were direct aversions to the lives of many in that time. Jesus questioned the religious norms of his time and preached to people a different way of seeing religion. Jesus advocated for spirituality, not dogmatic religious thought.

The deaths of Jesus and Socrates, while occurring in different cultural and historical contexts, share profound philosophical implications and serve as pivotal moments that invite reflection on morality, justice, and the nature of the human experience. Socrates, an Athenian philosopher, faced execution for allegedly corrupting the youth and impiety. His trial and subsequent death exemplify the tension between individual conscience and societal norms. Socrates maintained that it is better to suffer injustice than to commit it. His calm demeanour in the face of death highlights his commitment to his philosophical principles, embracing the idea of the immortal soul and the pursuit of truth.

Similarly, Jesus' crucifixion embodies a profound moral and theological message. Charged with blasphemy and political insurrection, His death is interpreted by Christians as a voluntary sacrifice for the sins of humanity. Though Jesus’s teaching and death are viewed differently through the lens of spirituality. Like Socrates, Jesus faced a trial where the verdict was predetermined by societal pressures and the prevailing political climate. His teachings on love, forgiveness, and the Kingdom of God reflect a challenge to the status quo, echoing Socratic themes of virtue and the essence of true justice.

Both figures resisted the corruptions of their societies, leading to their deaths as a form of martyrdom. Socrates’ death prompts contemplation on the importance of philosophical inquiry and ethical living, while Jesus’ crucifixion extends these themes into the realms of faith and redemption. Furthermore, Jesus’ death again through the lens of spirituality is seen as a form of spiritual enlightenment and final birth. The way each man approaches death—Socrates with philosophical acceptance and Jesus with spiritual submission—invites deeper exploration of the relationship between the self, morality, and the divine.

In a broader sense, both deaths serve as catalysts for philosophical and religious movements that continue to impact Western thought. Socratic dialogues encourage individuals to seek wisdom through questioning, while Christian teachings promote a transformative understanding of love and sacrifice. The intersections of their legacies create a dialogue that resonates through the ages, urging societies to reflect on the values of justice, truth, and the human condition. Thus, the deaths of Jesus and Socrates stand not only as pivotal historical events but also as enduring symbols of the quest for meaning in life and death. Both of which serves as a beacon for truth and wisdom and how costly it can be in the face of pure ignorance.

Final thoughts

As mentioned previously, the death of Socrates marks a pivotal moment in the history of philosophy and Western thought, encapsulating the fundamental tensions between individual conscience and societal norms. Socrates' choice to accept his drinking of hemlock, despite having the opportunity to escape, exemplifies his commitment to his principles and the pursuit of truth. He viewed death not as an evil, but as a potential passage to a greater understanding. He thought that a life of wisdom and virtue was the best life one can live, and that of ignorance one that is not worth living. Socrates’ death is the pinnacle of what it means to live a life in the pursuit of wisdom and virtue, and what he can teach mankind.

Furthermore, his death signifies how ignorance is prevalent in the lives of many and how it is often preferred over truth and wisdom. Socrates, sent on a mission by God, never abandoned his post, but rather stood firm in his missions principles. Socrates valued such wisdom, virtue, and justice over his life, which, had he escaped, would have been a dishonorable and unjust life.

In the dialogues of Plato, particularly in "Phaedo," Socrates articulates his views on the immortality of the soul, suggesting that death is merely a transition rather than an end. This perspective invites reflection on the nature of existence and the ethical obligations of the individual in the face of unjust authority. Socrates’ death serves as a powerful testament to the idea that fostering critical thought and questioning established norms can lead to personal and societal transformation, often at great personal cost. Socrates’ choosing to die was an act of defiance against ignorance and injustice. Socrates held firm in light of wisdom and truth, rather than conforming to the darkness of ignorance that much of society was in. Had he done so, he would have put his soul in darkness and would have lacked any life.

Ultimately, the legacy of Socrates is felt in the ongoing quest for knowledge, wisdom, and the courage to stand by one's convictions. His willingness to engage in philosophical dialogue, even in the face of mortality, inspires subsequent generations to examine their beliefs and the structures that govern societal behaviour. In contemplating the death of Socrates, one is encouraged not just to reflect on the philosopher’s life and choices but also to consider the implications these have on contemporary discussions regarding ethics, justice, and individual rights within society. The spirit of Socrates and his teachings and methods remain with us centuries later and will continue to do so for many more. The death of Socrates demonstrates a warning of what has and can happen if ignorance is so rife throughout one’s soul and society at times. Such prevalence of ignorance plunges oneself and society into darkness, until a gadfly like Socrates and Jesus enlightens the masses through wisdom and bring them up to the light of being and truth. Both Socrates and Jesus, and many more, wanted to enlighten and have people live and speak from the eternal divinity within. But they tried to do so in times when people favoured ignorance. Favoured darkness over light, ignorance over wisdom, vice over virtue.

Is this any different today? Suppose another gadfly like Christ and Socrates were to come along and continue the same mission, would we listen? Or will we meet them with hostility and resentment because they expose our ignorance?

Only time will tell, but I suspect it will be the same. Such is the nature of human ignorance.